RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01769
COUNSEL: IL DEPT OF VET AFFAIRS
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unjustly accused of wrongdoing and was court-martialed along with
the individual who was guilty.
The applicant states that another airman had participated in a visit from a
German girl in the quarters and he was wrongfully accused of having
relations with her and was court-martialed.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 November 1945 for a
period of three years and was progressively promoted to the grade of
private first class.
Inasmuch as the discharge correspondence is not available, the facts
surrounding the applicant’s discharge are unknown.
The available record reflects that he was tried and convicted by a summary
court-martial on 28 August 1946 for failure to repair on 27 August 1946.
He was sentenced to confinement for three days and forfeiture of $5.32.
On 22 October 1946, he was tried and convicted by a summary court-martial
for conducting himself in a disorderly manner by introducing a fraulein
into his quarters, thereby failing to obey a direct order by his commanding
officer. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 14 days.
The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 615-365 on 17
November 1948, with service characterized as under honorable conditions
(general). He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant be denied and states, in part, that the
applicant admitted in his statement he was convicted by a court-martial
after being accused of having relations with a German girl in his quarters.
He was also convicted by two summary courts-martial for failure to repair
and conducting himself in a disorderly manner. Based on the documentation
in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 14 June 2002 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, this office has received no response.
On 6 September 2002, the applicant was offered an opportunity to provide
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service;
however, no response has been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the available
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find
no evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, the discharge appears
to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the time of
his separation. The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that
his separation was inappropriate. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the
existing record.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the
applicant's overall quality of service and the absence of evidence related
to his post-service activities and accomplishments. On balance, we do not
believe that clemency is warranted.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-1769 in
Executive Session on 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Martha Evans, Member
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
Exhibit E. Request for FBI Report, dated 6 Aug 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 02, w/atch.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00737 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). In response, he provided a letter that is appended at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02357 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. He received 14 days’ restriction. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant...
His reduction to the grade of E-1 be remitted and he be reinstated to the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. If the Board feels it is in the best interest of the Air Force to retain the member, it should restore his grade to staff sergeant or grant a HYT waiver to extend him until December 2005.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02676
He received another Article 15 on 18 June 1971 for failure to report for duty on 15 June and 16 June 1971. On 15 September 1971, he was notified by the unit commander that administrative discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, Paragraph 2-4b, because he had been diagnosed as possessing a character and behavior disorder of “passive-aggressive personality - severe.” He consulted with military counsel and submitted a statement...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01954
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of his discharge. Upon review of the findings, they find the Board of Officers did not direct a specific characterization of discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
The board recommended that he be discharged from the service for misconduct because of a civil court disposition with an undesirable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01447
On 17 October 1951, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial for failing to obey a lawful order. For this incident he was confined at hard labor for four (4) months, and forfeited $50.00 per month for a like period. In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886
At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01736 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. DPPRS further states that the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that may have occurred during his discharge processing. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.